Perspective

Prince Fielder signing with the Nats: "There's the big bat in the middle of the order! Woo-hoo!"

Prince Fielder signing with someone other than the Nats: "Nine years, $214 million for that fatass?! Good luck, suckers!!!"

Square Pegs and Oranges

Silly rumor season has started, and some of the buzz has been about the Nats hoping to find a leadoff hitting centerfielder like Mr. Bourn.

All I think of when I see that? AAIEIEIEIEIEEEEEEEE

Ever since the Nats moved here in 1987, they've tried EVERY SINGLE YEAR to find a lead-off hitting centerfielder. Here's the problem: there just aren't that many leadoff hitting CFers. Lemme qualify that. Of tonight's 30 teams in action, 8 had leadoff hitters who played center. How many should be? Maybe half that total.

The problem with the Nats -- and it's true of their entire roster -- is that they just don't have enough good players. Don't focus on the role. Focus on getting good players, then figure a slot for them.

When you cast your net into something so narrow as a leadoff hitting CFer, you're artificially narrowing the pool of potential players.

Sure, Mr. Bourn would look great in the Nats uniform batting leadoff. But then I'd be even happier with Mr. Kemp beatting cleanup.

Innings, Pitches, Bananas & Pears

Having secured his first win in four tries as manager of the Washington Nationals, Davey Johnson has shifted his focus to creating a better machine. Today's topic: giving his starting pitchers "a longer leash".

For longtime Nationals fans (let's just presume such a description applies to fans of a club created in 2005), the subject of getting more innings out of the starters this season might seem a bit peculiar. For the past five seasons, the Nats weren't getting a decent amount of innings out of the starting pitching, owing to a continually shabby collection starters who couldn't go deep into games and some risk-averse managerial tendencies (especially under Manny Acta). A quick review:

- In 2006, Nats starters averaged 5.4 innings pitched/per game start; the National League average was 5.8 IP/GS;

- In 2007, Nats starters averaged 5.3 IP/GS; the NL average was 5.7 IP/GS;

- In 2008, Nats starters averaged 5.5 IP/GS; the NL average was 5.8 IP/GS;

- In 2009, Nats starters averaged 5.6 IP/GS; the NL average was 5.8 IP/GS; and,

- In 2010, Nats starters averaged 5.5 IP/GS; the NL average was 5.9 IP/GS.

This year, however, Nats starters are outpacing the league average in innings pitched per start; they're averaging 6.1 IP/GS, compared to an NL average of 6.0 IP/GS. As you can see, the NL average for IP/GS is increasing somewhat (corresponding to some degree with this season's decreased scoring environment), and the Nats are mixed in with a bunch of teams averaging about 5.9 to 6.1 IP/GS. In other words, Washington's starting pitchers have been strong thus far -- especially when you factor out the outlying Phillies, whose Halladay/Lee/Hamels one-two-three punch has pushed their team average to 6.5 IP/GS.

Obviously, IP/GS is merely one way of looking at things. It's useful in considering how much of a burden a team's bullpen must shoulder, but it's a measurement of only one factor -- innings. There are other ways to measure how much "leash" a starting pitcher is given.

For instance, Nationals starters are actually averaging fewer than the NL average in pitches per game. Looking at things a little bit more deeply, Nats starters have more than their share of 80-99 pitch outings, but comparatively fewer 100-119 pitch outings. Hey, let's look at this in handy chart form:

Category	Nationals	NL Average
IP/GS	6.1	6.0
GS 80-99	44	37
GS 100-119	28	36

The Nationals have a long and decidely uninteresting history of being the kings of the 80-to-99-pitch start. This tendency was especially strong in the Acta years, when the starting pitching sometimes bordered on replacement-level and, even when that was not the case, Acta had a rather robotic tendency to pull his starter before the 100-pitch mark. I looked into the matter years ago, but there's no sense boring people again with this trivia. Anyway, there can also be other reasons for not getting a lot of 100+ pitch starts, such as falling in love with a reliable and/or durable middle reliever or two. We've seen a couple of those over the years. Whatever the reason, Nationals starters have never really tended to rack up the 100-to-119-pitch starts, even this year (and anything about 120 pitches is a rarity for any team, except perhaps the Phillies).

Of course, 80-to-99 as opposed to 100-to-119 is simply the cut-off Baseball Reference uses, and this can be a blunt instrument. If Johnson is going to allow his starters more "leash," then that that decision might be reflected a little more subtly in the pitch counts. For example, it's not really the case that
John Lannan is lasting 80 or 85 pitches per game, and that's it -- and it's also not the case that Lannan is now going to became a 115-pitch-per-start warhorse. But, if we look a little more closely, we might see some of his 85-to-95-pitch starts turn into 95-to-105-pitch ones.

It's something worth watching, I suppose, especially since the perception from some of the starters seems to be that Jim Riggleman had a quick hook this year.

Mules and Racehorses

Boy, did Jim Riggleman ever figure out how to draw attention his way or what? All of a sudden, not only the local beatwriters but also the national columnists can diagram intricate portraits of Riggleman's psyche, as if Riggleman's growing frustration and resentment had been a story simmering on the stove of the entire baseball media. Two days ago, your average baseball fan might not have even realized that Riggleman was managing an MLB club; since late afternoon yesterday, he's been the game's biggest story.

I've read some of the Riggleman apologia out there (Tim Kurkjian's ESPN column linked above seems representative), and here's where my train of thought comes to a grinding halt: I can't really figure out what Riggleman was trying to accomplish by resigning the way he did.

If in life there are your mules and your racehorses, then Jim Riggleman was obviously a mule of a manager. This isn't to say he was a bad manager -- although his career record certainly isn't good, he brought some positive traits to the Nationals -- but he's nothing special and most likely is not in high demand for his services. Riggleman went "rotting on the vine" for many years after the Cubs ditched him. Riggleman's last two managerial opportunities (with the Mariners and now the Nats) arose only because he was the bench coach (his most familiar position over the past decade), his manager was fired mid-season, and Riggleman happened to be around. Riggleman was the guy who drove the lemon to the junkyard.

So it's something of a miracle -- or, if you're Mike Rizzo today, perhaps a curse -- that Riggleman lasted this long with the Nationals. The club played well, relatively speaking, after Riggleman assumed command of the drifting and lifeless Good Ship Acta in the middle of 2009. Riggleman then guided the club to a 69-93 record last season, which could be described as a so-so performance only based on low expectations. Riggleman didn't really thrive in the job, but instead basically ensured that things didn't revert back to being a mess.

It seems to me that Riggleman's job was not really to be the Manager of the Washington Nationals Baseball Club, but merely to manage the Nationals while they were a very bad club. All along, he remained a glorified interim manager. Riggleman was the man for this job both because a) he apparently has a reputation for being a solid guy and because b) well, somebody had to manage the Nats while they were very bad.

Given this perspective, Riggleman's ultimatum (however it was phrased) strikes me as toothless. If he goes now or goes later, what's the big deal? It's not like someone else would snap him up (at least I don't think so), and surely no one would do so if he aired his reason for abruptly resigning. He only hurt himself by resigning in the manner that he did:

1) If you're going to resign because you're unhappy with your contract situation, at least keep that part quiet and come up with another reason -- a nice and bland one that doesn't burn bridges so pointlessly. Your true feelings are bound to come out eventually, but it's not like you need to go on the press tour explaining that you've been jerked around and reiterating that you're a man.

2) Although there are many reports that Riggleman's frustration had been festering for quite some time, I don't think it's unfair to infer that he used the team's very hot play of late as leverage. If so, I don't think that's a very classy thing to do, but in the real world you have to play your strongest hand. Still, Riggleman would've ended up with much more leverage if the Nats made a surprise run much deeper into the season. At that point, there might've even been public pressure to keep him. Remember, the fans apparently played a large part in bringing Bob Carpenter back to the broadcast booth.

I can't really say that I'm unsympathetic with Riggleman's feelings on the matter, and I also suspect that some of Rizzo's comments are too clever by a half. There was more to the story than we knew yesterday afternoon, obviously, and there's obviously still more to the story than we know now. It's doubtful that Rizzo handled this in the best way possible, and there's a lot of smoke (mainly from unattributed quotes) that Rizzo has some communication issues. I can't recall Riggleman ever bringing bad attention to his organization, so it's fair to conclude that Rizzo played some part in this mess.

In the end, however, Riggleman signed a contract -- the terms might have been very unfavorable, but he signed it. Riggleman's not absolutely bound by that contract; the Nats can't force him to manage their team. However, Riggleman essentially quit on his team due to a contract squabble and then he made that squabble very public. Riggleman never really distinguished himself as a manager in my eyes, but he did have my respect as a fan. Now, for what it's worth, that's gone.